1. Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Featured "Life comes from Life"!

Discussion in 'Evolution Vs. Creationism' started by theQuestion, Feb 9, 2020.

Tags:
  1. ratiocinator

    ratiocinator Lightly Seared on the Reality Grill

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2017
    Messages:
    2,208
    Ratings:
    +1,472
    Religion:
    none
    That doesn't stop it from obviously being your motivation. Creationist attitudes and agendas are often obvious even when not stated.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  2. Audie

    Audie Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2018
    Messages:
    15,571
    Ratings:
    +7,807
    Religion:
    None
    If an evodenier had any other reason, it would
    probably have to be that he had actually done
    some done a lot of (gasp) hard work in lab
    and had made some original discovery.

    Of course, some uniformed people might
    hear of evolution and say they didnt believe
    it for reasons of incredulity perhaps.

    If there is some other reason than simple
    ignorance or more likely ignorance amplified
    by religion, maybe someone could tell us what
    that reason might be.
     
  3. shmogie

    shmogie Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2014
    Messages:
    8,976
    Ratings:
    +1,856
    Religion:
    Christian
    So, the fact that that the process of abiogenesis is unknown, is actually a religious treatise....................right.

    Your post says much more about your hangups and those of others, than it does about me.

    You guys just cannot leave it alone as it is. Your need to comment on me, as opposed to what I wrote, time after time, makes my point.

    Attacking one personally is the goal, not addressing what is written.

    It certainly isn't my fault that science doesn't know how abiogenesis took place, nor establish that it did.
     
  4. Yazata

    Yazata Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2018
    Messages:
    54
    Ratings:
    +44
    Religion:
    agnostic with Buddhist tendencies
    Depends on what "proven" is taken to mean, I guess. Mathematical or logical style proof? Probably not. Plausible and convincing arguments, much more likely.

    After all, conditions in the big bang wouldn't have been consistent with life, in the biological sense. So if we accept big bang cosmology, that implies that there was a time at which no life existed in the entire universe. Today, we ourselves are proof that life does exist. Life from non-life.

    True. I doubt that we will ever know for sure how life first appeared. Unless time-travel allows us to visit the very early Earth, we won't ever be able to observe the first steps in the origin of life.

    Of course we can (and already are) hypothesizing about how it might have happened. Some of those hypotheses can even be tested. Various chemical mechanisms are proposed and laboratory experiments can show whether they are capable of producing the required products. We can try to learn more about conditions on the early Earth and try to determine whether the hypothesized chemical reactions would have taken place in the very ancient environment. Various pathways can be imagined to get from chemical reactions to cells, and evidences of those intermediate steps can be sought.

    It's going to be hard though, and much of the needed evidence might no longer exist. It's never going to be a slam-dunk. We will never know with complete certainty how life first appeared.

    That's not exactly an argument for divine creationism though.
     
    • Like Like x 3
  5. Audie

    Audie Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2018
    Messages:
    15,571
    Ratings:
    +7,807
    Religion:
    None
    Seems very doubtful that the exact environment on earth was
    in those days will ever be known.

    If abio is achieved in a lab we wont know how close it
    is to those circumstances, but, at the same time it may
    show that there are multiple pathways.

    It might be that our heroes of the opposition will then move the
    goal posts from "cannot be done in a lab, cannot happen
    out in nature either" to "yeah you just proved intelligent design"
    or some (several) such.

    But we might be able to in that way at least to
    drive a stake thro' the heart of the "vital force" theory,
    to which all our creos so bitterly cling.
     
    • Like Like x 3
  6. Dan From Smithville

    Dan From Smithville Veteran Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2017
    Messages:
    10,210
    Ratings:
    +6,729
    Religion:
    Christian (Methodist)
    I have noticed that some people cannot stand to be wrong or seen as wrong and they just keep digging a deeper and deeper hole without appearing to recognize their own efforts. That seems to happen a lot with authoritarian mindsets with a lot of emotional drive.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  7. ratiocinator

    ratiocinator Lightly Seared on the Reality Grill

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2017
    Messages:
    2,208
    Ratings:
    +1,472
    Religion:
    none
    Nope - but you trying to make it so much of it, obviously is.

    Oh, the irony...

    But we have established (have very good evidence) that it did - evidence that, in part ("macro"-evolution), you have stated that you will not accept. There is plentiful evidence that the early earth was lifeless and that life arose and subsequently evolved into the diverse and complex forms we see today.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  8. Valjean

    Valjean Veteran Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2004
    Messages:
    22,801
    Ratings:
    +10,314
    Religion:
    Vedanta (reform)
    No. Abiogenesis is a reasonable position. It holds that there was a time when there was no life on Earth and, at some later date, there was. Oddly enough, Christian theology seems to agree.
    It's mechanism where they disagree, not the fact of abiogenesis. Science investigates mechanism, religion ignores it.

    It certainly isn't my fault that science doesn't know how abiogenesis took place, nor establish that it did.[/QUOTE]Are you objecting to cause-and-effect reasoning? Are you objecting to the quest for mechanism? Are you making a case for magic?
    Science doesn't know lots of things, and doesn't fully understand even more, but its history is one of steady increase in understanding.

    Science assumes that things have understandable mechanisms involving natural laws and constants. Thus far, assuming underlying mechanism instead of divine magic has been very fruitful. Thus far, in fact, no hint of magic has ever been found.
    Abiogenesis involves the natural laws of chemistry or physics. There's no reason to assume it's not amenable to study. It is a reasonable field of study. Progress is being made.

    Lack of full understanding of a phenomenon is not evidence for magic.
     
    #548 Valjean, Feb 21, 2020
    Last edited: Feb 21, 2020
    • Like Like x 4
  9. shmogie

    shmogie Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2014
    Messages:
    8,976
    Ratings:
    +1,856
    Religion:
    Christian
    You have evidence you believe points to abiogenesis. Fine. I said nothing about macro evolution.

    I simply respond to others, I am not making a big deal of it, they are.

    It was one sentence to a person who needed to be reminded of the fact.


    That one fact has created posts that have gone on for days. I simply reassert the fact in response.

    It is actually quite a hoot, like watching a raccoon with an egg, he can't break.

    The statement stands.
     
  10. shmogie

    shmogie Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2014
    Messages:
    8,976
    Ratings:
    +1,856
    Religion:
    Christian
    Are you objecting to cause-and-effect reasoning? Are you objecting to the quest for mechanism? Are you making a case for magic?
    Science doesn't know lots of things, and doesn't fully understand even more, but its history is one of steady increase in understanding.

    Science assumes that things have understandable mechanisms involving natural laws and constants. Thus far, assuming underlying mechanism instead of divine magic has been very fruitful. Thus far, in fact, no hint of magic has ever been found.
    Abiogenesis involves the natural laws of chemistry or physics. There's no reason to assume it's not amenable to study. It is a reasonable field of study. Progress is being made.

    Lack of full understanding of a phenomenon is not evidence for magic.
    [/QUOTE]
    I didn't say it was evidence of anything, I said it was not understood.

    Science can go on ad infinitum trying to explain it, that creates no problem for me.
     
  11. Valjean

    Valjean Veteran Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2004
    Messages:
    22,801
    Ratings:
    +10,314
    Religion:
    Vedanta (reform)
    Je suis insulté!!!
    I've never met an egg I couldn't crack!
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  12. Valjean

    Valjean Veteran Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2004
    Messages:
    22,801
    Ratings:
    +10,314
    Religion:
    Vedanta (reform)

    Aren't people arguing that the ToE is untrue because abiogenesis isn't understood and, thus, goddidit?
     
    #552 Valjean, Feb 21, 2020
    Last edited: Feb 21, 2020
  13. shmogie

    shmogie Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2014
    Messages:
    8,976
    Ratings:
    +1,856
    Religion:
    Christian
    Some are.
     
  14. Wandering Monk

    Wandering Monk Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2019
    Messages:
    1,652
    Ratings:
    +1,046
    Religion:
    agnostic
    "We don't know how life started, therefore we know... (Goddidit.)"

    The logical fallacy called an argument from ignorance.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  15. shmogie

    shmogie Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2014
    Messages:
    8,976
    Ratings:
    +1,856
    Religion:
    Christian
    LOL !! You APPEAR to have the proper credintials to make that statement.
     
  16. shmogie

    shmogie Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2014
    Messages:
    8,976
    Ratings:
    +1,856
    Religion:
    Christian
    Hmmmm, so you challenge this statement, the process of abiogenesis is unknown?

    Or, are you just making a hypothetical argument, based on nothing in the statement, because you can?
     
  17. Wandering Monk

    Wandering Monk Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2019
    Messages:
    1,652
    Ratings:
    +1,046
    Religion:
    agnostic
    No, I don't challenge the statement. I challenge the reflex that since we don't know, God must have done it.
     
    • Winner Winner x 2
  18. gnostic

    gnostic The Lost One

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2006
    Messages:
    16,482
    Ratings:
    +4,537
    Religion:
    Pi π
    Nope.

    It may not be science now, but it is a working FALSIFIABLE hypothesis, with a lot better insight and more evidence to the early Earth than that provided by Genesis creation and the pseudoscience Intelligent Design.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  19. Aupmanyav

    Aupmanyav Be your own guru

    Joined:
    May 5, 2007
    Messages:
    21,464
    Ratings:
    +8,873
    Religion:
    Atheist, Advaita (Non-duality), Orthodox Hindu
    Are you a prophet? :)
    "Although the occurrence of abiogenesis is uncontroversial among scientists, its possible mechanisms are poorly understood."
    Abiogenesis - Wikipedia
    Science has been able to solve many mysteries. It will solve this too. It is only a question of time.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  20. Aupmanyav

    Aupmanyav Be your own guru

    Joined:
    May 5, 2007
    Messages:
    21,464
    Ratings:
    +8,873
    Religion:
    Atheist, Advaita (Non-duality), Orthodox Hindu
    I must add to it that it did not take much time for life to appear after the formation of Earth. Organic and life-building molecules are quite common in space. The formation of these molecules does not require any 'divine' help.

    "The earliest time that life forms first appeared on Earth is at least 3.77 billion years ago, possibly as early as 4.28 billion years, or even 4.5 billion years; not long after the oceans formed 4.41 billion years ago, and after the formation of the Earth 4.54 billion years ago."
    Abiogenesis - Wikipedia

    List of interstellar and circumstellar molecules - Wikipedia
    Contents: 1 Detection 1.1 History 2 Theoretical models 3 Molecules 3.1 Diatomic (43) 3.2 Triatomic (44) 3.3 Four atoms (28) 3.4 Five atoms (20) 3.5 Six atoms (16) 3.6 Seven atoms (12) 3.7 Eight atoms (11) 3.8 Nine atoms (10) 3.9 Ten or more atoms (17) 4 Deuterated molecules (20) 5. Unconfirmed (12) 6 See also 7 References 8 External links
     
    #560 Aupmanyav, Feb 21, 2020
    Last edited: Feb 21, 2020
Loading...